what if the Central powers had of won WWI

Because of the loses that the Australian and Canadian Units took under British leadership They demanded that in WWII there Troops Fought under there own command rather then under British command . Now what if there loses were even worst then what they had in WWI , might they demand Independence from the Empire or demand a Commonwealth relations ship like they had after WWII .

This happened politically OTL in any case. The dominions were represented at the Versailles talks as separate entities, and the Treaty of Westminster was a direct result of their self growth during the war. Gallipoli, Black day of the German army and Canada's hundred days and all that.

In order for our losses to be heavier you kind of have to make the german army more our equal, and that is pretty ASB. :)
 
This happened politically OTL in any case. The dominions were represented at the Versailles talks as separate entities, and the Treaty of Westminster was a direct result of their self growth during the war. Gallipoli, Black day of the German army and Canada's hundred days and all that.

In order for our losses to be heavier you kind of have to make the german army more our equal, and that is pretty ASB. :)

Gallipoli's not an er.......sterling...example of said growth, given what an utter crowning moment of awesome it proved to be.....for the Ottoman Empire. :p

Of course admittedly the Australians were a bunch of pore SSoS doomed to the first Churchill special and there was no way to predict that would happen the first time. ;):p
 
Agreed, but I was considering a hypothetical situation raised in the last few messages where the Kaiser has supposedly had to yield more power to the Reichstag.

Fair enough. But I'm not of that opinion. If Germany won WW1 under any scenario (except possibly a relatively painless 1914-15 victory) I think the only institution that would be in a position to coerce concessions from the Kaiser would be the army - and the army would probably not be inclined to share that power with parliament.
 
This happened politically OTL in any case. The dominions were represented at the Versailles talks as separate entities, and the Treaty of Westminster was a direct result of their self growth during the war. Gallipoli, Black day of the German army and Canada's hundred days and all that.

In order for our losses to be heavier you kind of have to make the german army more our equal, and that is pretty ASB. :)

Or make the British higher command even more stupid then it was .
Think of the British High Command ordering the Blunt of the Attacks in Early 1917 done by the Canadians and Australians troops instead of British Troops .
 
Gallipoli's not an er.......sterling...example of said growth, given what an utter crowning moment of awesome it proved to be.....for the Ottoman Empire. :p

No, but in the sense of sparking Australian and New Zealand national self realization it is certainly up there. The pilgrimages of Anzacs to this day are a testament to that. Sometimes National Myths can come from loss as well as victory.


Of course admittedly the Australians were a bunch of pore SSoS doomed to the first Churchill special and there was no way to predict that would happen the first time. ;):p

Well, the landing could have worked, for all the crappy planning, lack of secrecy, etc, Have Kemal posted anywhere else, and the anzacs take Chenuk Bair on the landing, and it is won on the first day. Not sure it knocks out the Turks, but it does change some things.
 
Or make the British higher command even more stupid then it was .
Think of the British High Command ordering the Blunt of the Attacks in Early 1917 done by the Canadians and Australians troops instead of British Troops .

They were not particularly any more stupid than most of their contemporaries in all the Belligerents. Professional officers trying to sort out how to deal with 10 million soldiers crammed into a tiny front. Something none of them was prepared for.

The Canadians and Australians were in all of the attacks in 1917 as part of the general offensives in some pretty grim places. Are you suggesting They be used as only single corps attacks over and over again until they get chewed to bits? That would be pretty stupid all right, but not very plausible.
 
Niall Ferguson thinks that a German victory in WWI would have saved millions of lives.

Whether there is any merit to this or not, I don't know. But it's interesting to consider anyway.
 
Niall Ferguson is full of shit. German victory would not have prevented the emergence of the Soviet Union short of the total commitment and occupation of the type precisely designed to collapse the German Empire as thoroughly as Tsarism before it happened. A surviving USSR will not save lives. Germany turning Europe into a mass of economically-dependent shackled regimes will not save lives, it will create an increasing powder-keg the Germans will be increasingly hard-pressed to sustain, all aimed at Germany, and it will still either way result in German domination in all connotations of the word of the continent of Europe by means that while still within the parameters of the old regime will be very unpleasant for those people whose own interests are now sacrificed to Germany's.

And in such a world where Nazism or anything like it would be unknown and a WWII like the OTL impossible, such domination would leave plenty of harsh memories on its own when it self-destructs as it ultimately must.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Niall Ferguson thinks that a German victory in WWI would have saved millions of lives.

Whether there is any merit to this or not, I don't know. But it's interesting to consider anyway.

The “myths” of World War I that Ferguson attacked, with his counter-arguments in parentheticals, are:
That Germany was a highly militarist country before 1914 (Ferguson claims Germany was Europe’s most anti-militarist country)[24]
That naval challenges mounted by Germany drove Britain into informal alliances with France and Russia before 1914 (Ferguson claims the British were driven into alliances with France and Russia as a form of appeasement due to the strength of those nations, and an Anglo-German alliance failed to materialize due to German weakness)[25]
That British foreign policy was driven by legitimate fears of Germany (Ferguson claims Germany posed no threat to Britain before 1914, and that all British fears of Germany were due to irrational anti-German prejudices) [26]
That the pre-1914 arms race was consuming ever larger portions of national budgets at an unsustainable rate (Ferguson claims that the only limitations on more military spending before 1914 were political, not economic)[27]
That World War I was, as Fritz Fischer claimed, a war of aggression on the part of Germany that necessitated British involvement to stop Germany from conquering Europe (Ferguson claims that if Germany had been victorious, something like the European Union would have been created in 1914, and that it would have been for the best if Britain had chosen to opt out of war in 1914)[28]
That most people were happy with the outbreak of war in 1914 (Ferguson claims that most Europeans were saddened by the coming of war) [29]
That propaganda was successful in making men wish to fight (Ferguson argues the opposite)[30]
That the Allies made the best use of their economic resources (Ferguson argues that the Allies “squandered” their economic resources) [31]
That the British and the French had the better armies (Ferguson claims the German Army was superior)[32]
That the Allies were more efficient at killing Germans (Ferguson argues that the Germans were more efficient at killing the Allies)[33]
That most soldiers hated fighting in the war (Ferguson argues most soldiers fought more or less willingly)[34]
That the British treated German prisoners of war well (Ferguson argues the British routinely killed German POWS)[35]
That Germany was faced with reparations after 1921 that could not be paid except at ruinous economic cost (Ferguson argues that Germany could easily have paid reparations had there been the political will)[36]

He is partially correct, and a lot of his points look like trolling to me, so i will skip those:

1) Prussia was the most militaristic, but Prussia was just a part of Germany. Germany spent less per capita than France. France was probably the most militaristic of the main powers. A-H was the least militaristic.
2) The Naval challenge did drive the UK to the French arms, but this was an UK choice. The Naval challenge made the budgets so high, the UK no longer could do splendid isolationism. It could have chose Germany or a collection of smaller powers, but it chose France. All paths had unpleasant side effects for the UK. To be an ally with Germany would have involved heavily supporting Germany in Africa, and may well have still brought the UK into any general conflict.
3) Based on GDP, the limitations were more political than economic, but not totally either one. Germany spend around 2/3 of funding on non-military spending, so Germany could have easily had 10 full armies not 8, and a navy as big as the UK was in OTL. France was a lot more resource constrained.
4) I guess in the UK the British army is consider better than the German army. This was not true. With regiment of equal size and with equal supply levels, the Germans would win. The French army was also better than the British. Britain was a Naval not a land power, and it showed in the war, especially in the early part of the war.

A lot of the rest is trolling. For example, many soldiers wanted to fight, many did not. A soldier could start with one belief at the beginning and have the opposite by the end of the war. Trolling is a great way to sell books.
 
it would have been for the best if Britain had chosen to opt out of war in 1914
I'd thought that (in hindsight) was utterly self evident and didn't even need arguing, hardly a 'myth'.

Now of course few in power at the time had that attitude and actually getting it to occur would require some fairly contrived circumstances, but Britain seeing all her continental rivals destroy themselves while staying aloof is surely obviously the best option. As indeed are so many other best options obvious in hindsight.
 

Perkeo

Banned
I'd thought that (in hindsight) was utterly self evident and didn't even need arguing, hardly a 'myth'.

Now of course few in power at the time had that attitude and actually getting it to occur would require some fairly contrived circumstances, but Britain seeing all her continental rivals destroy themselves while staying aloof is surely obviously the best option. As indeed are so many other best options obvious in hindsight.

Had the Brits chosen to opt out of war in 1914, they would NOT have seen all her continental rivals destroy themselves. Without additional troops that accomplished a stalemate IOTL and without the naval blockade that hurt Germany badly IOTL, with Germany saving the ressouces it spent trying to blockade Britain IOTL, Britain would have seen an overwhelming CP victory.
 
I'd thought that (in hindsight) was utterly self evident and didn't even need arguing, hardly a 'myth'.

Now of course few in power at the time had that attitude and actually getting it to occur would require some fairly contrived circumstances, but Britain seeing all her continental rivals destroy themselves while staying aloof is surely obviously the best option. As indeed are so many other best options obvious in hindsight.

No, it's not entirely clear that 1) assuming the German Empire wins the war letting it impose by armed force direct hegemony over Europe is a good thing, and 2) if it does this and the UK and USA wind up being a Soviet springboard for a different hegemony, then the consequences of not-intervening are far worse than intervening. But why let reality intrude on a CP-wank?
 
No, it's not entirely clear that 1) assuming the German Empire wins the war letting it impose by armed force direct hegemony over Europe is a good thing, and 2) if it does this and the UK and USA wind up being a Soviet springboard for a different hegemony, then the consequences of not-intervening are far worse than intervening. But why let reality intrude on a CP-wank?
As I would say that (1) is a CP-wank and (2) is frankly borderline ASB I don't think we're going to agree on the definition of reality in these circumstances.

However I will admit I might have been wrong earlier. The more I think about it getting the UK to plausibly not enter WW1 requires a POD so far back or so big that you probably butterfly anything that is recognisable as WW1.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Had the Brits chosen to opt out of war in 1914, they would NOT have seen all her continental rivals destroy themselves. Without additional troops that accomplished a stalemate IOTL and without the naval blockade that hurt Germany badly IOTL, with Germany saving the ressouces it spent trying to blockade Britain IOTL, Britain would have seen an overwhelming CP victory.

CP victory yes, but it could take until 1916. Depends on how 1914 goes in the west. Most likely A-H is still mauled by Russia, and Germany has to turn east in early 1915, so Germany has 6 months to knock out France, or the war waits for the 1916 campaign season. Now in any case France is in much worse shape in 1915, either defeat or much higher losses with the Germans holding more ground. So yes, the CP do win a decisive win, but even by mid 1916, the CP have suffered heavy casualties and crippling economic conditions. Inflation will be horrible in Germany after the war. Nothing like OTL, but still, it will be bad.
 
Considering the state of Germany in 1917, he might lose it regardless in a victory.

Very little. Even in a best case for Willie, he likely loses a lot of power in WW1 victory. All that it really takes to end his reign is enough social instability for the Army to decide he has to go into exile. The Kaiser resigning to allow the Crown Prince to assume the throne combined with some constitutional reform is also a real possible.

After a german victory the social democrats demand their pound of flesh for accepting the war loans in the Reichstag. The easiest way for the other parties to give them something will be to strip the emperor of what little power he still has and that's not as much as most here assume to begin with (namely not having to dismiss a cabinet after a vote of no confidence in the Reichstag). Wilhelm II. in his delusions of grandeur and his lack of proper sense of reality threatens to abdicate, which as he has to find out the hard way all too many politicians are most willing to accept. Disillusioned by such ingratitude he abdicates in favour of his son who grudgingly accepts being little more than a figurehead for the empire and having to deal with the first SPD led government in german history.

Thanks for answering my question.:)
 
I think they could only be worse off under the Nazi's.
Do you even know that the atrocities were commited under Leopold II personal rule under the "Free congo state" and it ended when Belgium annexed it in 1908 before that it was a crown property. Not that I deny the atrocity that were commited.
 
If Germany "wins" on land in France, either right away (Schlieffen Plan works) or in 1915, don't necessarily expect the USA will be anti-German. At the beginning of the war USA was more pro-Allies than CP but a number of factors conspired to swing US public opinion against Germany. Furthermore, if Britain attempts to continue any sort of blockade/restrictions on trade with Germany after France throws in the sponge, the USA will not tolerate it - and Britain will have to blockade all traffic to Europe, as absent a war going on on the continent, stuff can be shipped by rail from any continental port if need be. Imagine the RN stopping all shipping from US to Europe to check for "forbidden" cargo under those circumstances - not pretty or practical.

I think peace with UK gets German colonies back, or most of them. If UK tries to keep them all it may see itself excluded from continental trade either through tariffs or other barriers. German colonies not worth it. Similarly Japan will give back German colonies, at least in China if not Pacific Islands....I think the USA would support this as they had more to be nervous about with Japanese expansion in the Pacific as opposed to Germany having a few islands.

For all sides, the longer the war went on the more extreme the demands were - of course at the beginning there were fringe folks with extreme desires, but the "mainstream" hardened as the war went on. Not surprising the more the war had "cost" the more you wanted to get out of it.

An alliance of US/UK/USSR (assuming communists win) against Germany, not likely.
 
After a german victory the social democrats demand their pound of flesh for accepting the war loans in the Reichstag. The easiest way for the other parties to give them something will be to strip the emperor of what little power he still has and that's not as much as most here assume to begin with (namely not having to dismiss a cabinet after a vote of no confidence in the Reichstag). Wilhelm II. in his delusions of grandeur and his lack of proper sense of reality threatens to abdicate, which as he has to find out the hard way all too many politicians are most willing to accept. Disillusioned by such ingratitude he abdicates in favour of his son who grudgingly accepts being little more than a figurehead for the empire and having to deal with the first SPD led government in german history.


Only if the Centre Party aligns with the Sozis. They would hold the balance in the Reichstag, and might well prefer to ally with the right, as iirc they commonly did before 1914. Expect a long string of Centre Party Chancellors.

The most interesting question is not about Germany but about Prussia. If the three-class franchise is abolished (and if any change is accepted, that one is by far the likeliest) then Prussia will have a Social Democratic government most of the time (OTL she had one from 1919 to 1932). Could this result in the Right supporting a new Constitution drastically curtailing the powers of the States - as a way to curb those Reds in the Landtag?
 
Top